Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
truth_n ghost_n holy_a son_n 6,613 5 5.5143 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A44670 A calm and sober enquiry concerning the possibility of a Trinity in the Godhead in a letter to a person of worth : occasioned by the lately published considerations on the explications of the doctrine of the Trinity by Dr. Wallis, Dr. Sherlock, Dr. S--th, Dr. Cudworth, &c. ... Howe, John, 1630-1705. 1694 (1694) Wing H3018; ESTC R10702 46,740 146

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

A Calm and Sober ENQUIRY Concerning The Possibility OF A TRINITY in the Godhead IN A LETTER to a Person of Worth Occasioned By the lately Published Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity By Dr. Wallis Dr. Sherlock Dr. S th Dr. Cudworth c. Together with Certain Letters hitherto unpublished formerly Written to the Reverend Dr. Wallis on the same Subject LONDON Printed by J. Astwood for Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and 3 Crowns at the lower End of Cheapside near Mercers Chappel 1694. A CALM DISCOURSE OF THE Trinity in the Godhead c. SIR I Intend not this Discourse shall be concern'd in what this Author hath said of the several Explications given by the Persons named on his Title-page The only thing it is design'd for is the Discoursing with him that single Point which he refers to in his 29th and 30th pages and which in this Controversie is on all hands confessed to be the Cardinal one viz. Whether a Trinity in the Godhead be possible or no I put not the Question about three Persons both because I will not in so short a Discourse as I intend to make this be engaged in discussing the unagreed Notion of a Person and because the Scripture lays not that Necessity upon me tho' I do not think the use of that term in this affair either blameable or indefensible But I shall enquire whether the Father the Son or Word and the Holy Ghost cannot possibly admit of sufficient distinction from one another to answer the parts and purposes severally assigned them by the Scripture in the Christian Oeconomy and yet be each of them God consistently with this most inviolable and indubitable truth that there can be but one God This Author concludes it to be impossible in the mentioned Pages of his Discourse and thereupon seems to judg it Necessary that two of them be excluded the Godhead as many others some going the Arian some the Photinian more lately called the Socinian way have done before him He acknowledges pag. 30. col 1. there may be some Secret revealed by God because it was above Humane Capacicity to discover it and sometimes also to comprehend how it can be But adds there is a vast difference between my not being able to conceive how a thing should be and a clear apprehension and sight that it cannot be What he says thus far is unexceptionable and I heartily concur with him in it But for what he subjoyns wherein he might have spoken his Mind of the Matter in Controversie with as much Advantage to his Cause without reflecting upon his Adversaries as if they considered these things either with no intention or with no sincerity not allowing them even the never so little of the one or the other that three distinct almighty and alknowing Persons should be but one Almighty or but One All-knowing or but one God a Man who considers with never so little intention and sincerity clearly sees that it cannot be In short that it is not a Mystery but as Dr. South speaks an absurdity and a contradiction This is that I would consider with him if he will affix these words of his a Man who considers c. clearly sees it cannot be and it is an absurdity and a contradiction to the Question as I have set it down above In the mean time he cannot be ignorant that as he hath represented the matter he hath here either not truly or at least not fairly given the sense of any of them whom he pretended to oppose For when by those words But that three Divine Persons or that three distinct almighty and allknowing Persons should be but one Almighty but one Allknowing or but One God he would slily insinuate to his unwary and less attentive Reader that the same Men held three Almighties and but One He well knows and elsewhere confesses tho' he might suppose that some Readers would not be at leisure to compare one place of his Writings with another but hastily run away with the apprehension that such as were not of his mind spake nothing but Nonsense and Contradictions that not only his later Opposers since P. Lumbard as he speaks but divers much more ancient as Athanasius and the rest of the Nicene Fathers c. deny'd three Almighties tho' they affirmed each of the Persons to be Almighty understanding Omnipotency as they do Omnisciency to be an attribute not of the person as such but of the essence as such which they affirm to be but One i. e. that they are each of them almighty by communication in one and the same almighty essence And if their Sentiment be so very absurd he needed the less to fear representing it as it is And the other who seems to grant three Almighties doth never say there is but one Almighty tho' such say too there is but One God placing the Unity of the Godhead in somewhat else as he hath himself taken Notice which is remote from express Self-contradiction also But I shall concern my self no further about the one or the other of these ways of explaining the Doctrine of the three Persons Only shall enquire concerning the possibility of such a Trinity in the Godhead as was above expressed requiting the uncharitableness of this Author in imputing carelesness or insincerity to all that think it possible with so much Charity as to believe he would not against the plain tenour of Scripture have rejected the Doctrine of the Trinity as he professes to do that of the Incarnation if he had not thought it every way impossible And here I premise 1. That the present Undertaking is not to shew that the Father Son and Holy Ghost are three and but One in the same respect which I would adventure in this Authors words to say no Man that considers with never so little Intention and Sincerity would offer at But when they are supposed to be but One in respect of Deity they are thought to be three in some other respect 2. That what I now design is only to represent this matter as possible to be some way and in the way here proposed for ought we know not as definitely certain to be this way or that The former is enough to our present purpose i. e. if any way it can be conceived without absurdity or contradiction that these may be three with sufficient distinction to found the distinct Attributes which the Scriptures do severally give them so as some things may be affirmed of some one and not be affirmed of the other of them and yet their Unity in Godhead be conserved our Point is gained and the clamour of this and every other Opposer ought to cease for our asserting what every one that considers clearly sees cannot be Now so much being forelaid that we may proceed with clearness and satisfaction of mind If we would understand whether it be possible that these three may be sufficiently distinguished for the mentioned purpose and yet